ChatGPT in medical literature - a concise review and SWOT analysis
Goedde, D.; Noehl, S.; Wolf, C.; Rupert, Y.; Rimkus, L.; Ehlers, J.; Breuckmann, F.; Sellmann, T.
Show abstract
BackgroundChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) has initiated widespread conversation across various human sciences. We here performed a concise review combined with a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis on ChatGPT potentials in natural science including medicine. MethodsThis is a concise review of literature published in PUBMED from 01.12.2022 to 31.03.2023. The only search term used was "ChatGPT". Publications metrics (author, journal, and subdisciplines thereof) as well as findings of the SWOT analysis are presented. FindingsOf 178 studies in total, 160 could be evaluated. The average impact factor was 4,423 (0 - 96,216), average publication speed was 16 days (0-83 days). Of all articles, there were 77 editorials, 43 essays, 21 studies, six reviews, six case reports, six news, and one meta-analyses. Strengths of ChatGPT include well-formulated expression as well as the ability to formulate general contexts flawlessly and comprehensibly, whereas the time-limited scope as well as the need for correction by experts were identified as weaknesses and threats. Opportunities include assistance in formulating medical issues for non-native speakers as well as the chance to be involved in the development of such AI in a timely manner. InterpretationArtificial intelligences such as ChatGPT will revolutionize more than just the medical publishing landscape. One of the biggest dangers in this is uncontrolled use, so we would do well to establish control and security measures at an early stage. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSSince its release in 11/ 2022, only a few randomized controlled trials using ChatGPT have been published. To date, the majority of data stems from short notes or communication. Given the enormous interest (and also potential for misuse), we conducted a PUBMED literature search to create the most comprehensive evidence base currently available. We searched PUBMED for publications including the quote "ChatGPT" in English or German from 01.12.2022 until 31.03.2023. In order not risk any bias of evidence all related publications were screened initially. Added value of this studyThis is the most concise review for ChatGPT up to date. By means of a SWOT analysis, readers and researchers gain comprehensive insight to strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of ChatGPT especially in the context of medical literature. Implications of all the available evidenceOur review may well serve as origin for further research related to the topic in order to create more evidence, strict regulations and policies in dealing with ChatGPT.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 96%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 96%
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 95%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study. 93%
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 93%
- Designathons in Health Research: A Global Systematic Review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Generative artificial intelligence models in clinical infectious disease consultations: a cross-sectional analysis among specialists and resident trainees 93%
- SARS-CoV-2 Infection Breakthrough among the non-vaccinated and vaccinated: a Real World Evidence study based on Big Data 89%
- Relationship Between Participation In Daily Life Activities And Physical Activity In Stroke Survivors: A Protocol For A Systematic Review And Meta-Analyses-Based Data Synthesis 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 94%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.